ArticleIBRO neuroscience reports2026
Anticipatory slow potentials before auditory feedback show posterior predominance but limited condition effects in speech-in-noise.
Article in IBRO neuroscience reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It remains unclear whether noisy listening reliably modulates anticipatory EEG activity before feedback and whether such activity explains interindividual differences in speech-in-noise performance. We examined these questions in an independent cohort of young adults with normal hearing using a time-estimation task with auditory feedback presented in silence and in continuous multi-talker noise. Stimulus-preceding negativity (SPN) was quantified as the mean EEG amplitude in the -200-0 ms interval before feedback onset. The primary analysis used ROI × hemisphere linear mixed-effects models. A response-locked contingent negative variation (CNV) analysis was included as a control. Speech-in-noise performance was summarized descriptively across 0, -5, -10, and -15 dB signal-to-noise ratios, and brain-behavior associations were treated as exploratory. The primary SPN analysis showed a clear posterior predominance, with more negative amplitudes at parietal and occipital than at central and frontal regions. However, the main effect of listening condition was not significant, and neither hemisphere nor the condition × hemisphere interaction reached significance. The CNV control analysis likewise showed no reliable condition effect. Speech-in-noise performance declined monotonically as the signal-to-noise ratio decreased, indicating that the independent behavioral test captured the expected effect of increasing acoustic difficulty across SNR levels. Exploratory analyses did not reveal robust associations between speech-in-noise performance and SPN or CNV measures. These findings indicate that the task elicited anticipatory slow potentials with posterior predominance, but provided limited evidence for reliable modulation by background noise under the present task parameters and sample characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.